National Debt And Stuff

[Lumpenproletariat]

The problem is the outrageous tax cuts of the GOP. While shrieking "deficits bad!", the GOP wants to make the massive Trump tax cuts, due to expire in 2025, permanent.

Again, It is the math, Stupid! It is mathematically impossible to cut our way to a balanced budget.

Balancing the budget is not what's needed. The need is to
reduce the debt/deficit as a percent of the economy, now that the crisis causing the debt increase (the pandemic) is over. So the deficit needs to be brought down, not up as Biden's budget would do. Bringing it down requires a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. If we don't achieve this, then Congress should vote NO on raising the debt ceiling.

If there's a disaster coming because the debt level was not raised, it will be the fault of those who insisted either on no spending cuts or on no tax increases. Both these groups of dogmatists will be equally to blame.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And again, it is the math, Stupid! We cannot nathematically cut our way to a balanced budget. Then start cutting to get rid of the National debt. The GOP will not allow taxes to be increased. They are weaponizing all of this to destroy, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA like they have been doing since the days of FDR. No matter how you pontificate, that is it in a nutshell.

Now, tell us how to get the GOP to do the math, Stupids! And act like reasonable men and women.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

THE MATH:
spending cuts + tax increases = reduced budget deficit
Write it on the blackboard 100 times.

And again, it is the math, Stupid! We cannot mathematically cut our way to a balanced budget.

But we can cut our way to a lower deficit. Or increase taxes to a lower deficit. The "to a balanced budget" is pointless rhetoric.

Then start cutting to get rid of the National debt.

No, forget that rhetoric too. No one is seriously proposing that. Anyone saying that is just speaking symbolism, or sloganism, and not about the world of concrete choices. The real choice we have is that of reducing the current deficit. It's not true that the public debt (as a percent of the economy) has to keep rising, as Left-wing crusaders imagine. This higher-debt trend has probably done more harm than good to the economy.

The GOP will not allow taxes to be increased. They are weaponizing all of this to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA like they have been doing since the days of FDR.

No, they've not been doing that since FDR. Back then there was no Medicare, Medicaid, or ACA to destroy. Nor was there SS back then such as we have it today. What the GOP has been doing is trying restore all those programs to what they were in the days of FDR, or actually put them at a level higher than what they were at that time.

No matter how you pontificate, that is it in a nutshell.

Now, tell us how to get the GOP to do the math, Stupids! And act like reasonable men and women.

It's "reasonable" to reduce our dependency on debt, rather than to keep increasing it steadily. So the question is how to get both parties to stop running up higher and higher costs without the tax revenue to pay for it.

Democrats are being unreasonable, because most of them are preaching to stop the higher and higher debt, and yet they keep running up more spending. What's needed is for both parties to enact something that results in less % of debt, meaning increased taxes PLUS spending cuts or slower spending growth.

The pettiness of imagining that only one party is to blame is the problem.

Further, Democrats are remiss in proposing realistic tax increases. E.g., they are completely ignoring Bernie Sanders' Wall Street tax, probably because they are too close to stock investor interests. Plus there are other tax increase approaches than only higher income-tax rates on the super-rich. Dems are ignoring the very high enforcement costs/auditing for the IRS, plus all the waste of resources spent on the tax lawyers which protect the super-rich, finding more loopholes for them. Democrats need to get their head out of their butt and find realistic ways to get more from the super-rich. There are ways, but they are too obsessed with their fire-breathing sermons against the rich, which increases their popularity among the ignorant masses, rather than anything of substance. They keep preaching the same sermons as 50 years ago, which hasn't produced any results. They think their demagoguery and preaching sermons is their function, rather than steps to make the government and economy perform better.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Straight from www.whitehouse.gov. The Budget Of The United States - Fiscal Year 2023 - Summary Tables

Discretionary spending $1.639 trillion
Non-miiltary. Spending. $ .837 trillion
Mandatory Spending. $.5.625 trillion
Deficit $1.176 trillion

What ya gonna cut? How much? The GOP Congress members have all signed the Grover Norquist oath to never raise taxes, no matter what. Google Grover Norquist oarh for that. The GOP, despite very recent disclaimers, wants to slash Social Security et al deeply. Each Trump initial budget plan slashed all safety net programs deeply. Trump could not sell that, and neither did many Norquististas on the GOP side.

Let's get real. Look at the pretty numbers. And read the GOP room. You can sit there and bellow cut spending and raise taxes, now, do the numbers for us.

Our deficit for 2023 is $1.176 trilions. And then we have the $31 trilion National Debt.
At $1 trilion a year, it would take 31 years to eliminate that.

Future deficits are projected at ~$ 550 billions IF BIDEN GETS HIS TAX RAISES ON THE WEALTHY. Meanwhile the GOP wants to make Trump's massive tax cuts, due to expire in 2025, permament. Do you SEE the problems with balancing the budget now? We don't have a deficit problem, we have a GOP problem. How do you propose to deal realistically with that?

How do we bell that cat?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

GOP author of bank deregulation law says 'no need' for tougher safeguards - Raw Story
www.rawstory.com
Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, the lead author of a 2018 bank deregulation law that weakened key guardrails designed to prevent another financial crisis, insisted this week that there is "no need" to impose more strict rules following two of the largest bank collapses in U.S. history.
"There is no need for regulatory reform," said Crapo, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee when Congress passed the 2018 law despite vocal warnings from experts that it would destabilize the banking sector. Dozens of Democrats supported the measure.
....

Here is the big problem. Politicians who cannot learn from experience. Even when their rank stupidity leaves a trail of wreckage behind them. Even when experts explain to them why their bad policies will lead to sure disaster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do we bell that cat?

It's not about belling the cat, it's about blaming the Democrats for not belling the cat.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

First, what are the correct numbers?

The numbers I find show that it would require less than $300 billion to bring down the current deficit to the level of last year's, or lower. Why shouldn't this be possible?

Straight from www.whitehouse.gov. The Budget Of The United States - Fiscal Year 2023 - Summary Tables

Discretionary spending $1.639 trillion
Non-miiltary. Spending. $ .837 trillion
Mandatory Spending. $.5.625 trillion
Deficit $1.176 trillion

The above doesn't seem to be in the source you cite, and $1.176 seems incorrect. It's good to first get the numbers correct. It's confusing about the different sources.

The 2023 deficit is somewhere between 1,414,407,000,000 and 1,580,776,000,000 trillion, according to https://www.usdebtclock.org/ , not 1.176 trillion, which would be a decrease of the deficit from the previous year. You're saying Biden's 2023 budget REDUCES the deficit. I think that's incorrect.

The increase of the current deficit could easily be eliminated by doing modest spending cuts or tax increases. No one is giving any reason why it's not possible to do that. Saying it won't happen is beside the point. It could be done, and then there'd be no serious reason to not raise the debt ceiling enough the pay this year's budget. At least we'd be going the right direction, with the deficit decreasing by a small amount.

Biden's 2024 budget deficit will be still higher.

This 2023 deficit is higher than 2022, which was about 1.38 trillion ( https://www.google.com/search?q=usa...j0i22i30l7.6133j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ). No one is giving a reason why we need to increase the deficit beyond what it was a year ago. Maybe the thinking is that "incrementalism" is a way to slowly keep raising the debt higher and higher, without it being noticed in each step along the way. There is no legitimate reason to adopt this incrementalist higher-debt crusade. The reasonable spending cuts (or tax increases) to prevent that incremental higher and higher debt are possible.

What ya gonna cut?

Probably .5% across-the-board cut on every spending program would be more than enough. The sky would not fall.

The Budget is not the Koran. Some of it can be changed without Allah sending fire from Heaven or a lightning bolt to strike us dead.

How much? The GOP Congress members have all signed the Grover Norquist oath to never raise taxes, no matter what. Google Grover Norquist oarh for that. The GOP, despite very recent disclaimers, wants to slash Social Security et al deeply. Each Trump initial budget plan slashed all safety net programs deeply. Trump could not sell that, and neither did many Norquististas on the GOP side.

Let's get real. Look at the pretty numbers. And read the GOP room. You can sit there and bellow cut spending and raise taxes, now, do the numbers for us.

Our deficit for 2023 is $1.176 trilions. And then we have the $31 trilion National Debt.
At $1 trilion a year, it would take 31 years to eliminate that.

Where is the "$1.176 trillions" from? It doesn't seem to be in your source above. And nevermind the "eliminate" National Debt rhetoric.

Future deficits are projected at ~$ 550 billions IF BIDEN GETS HIS TAX RAISES ON THE WEALTHY. Meanwhile the GOP wants to make Trump's massive tax cuts, due to expire in 2025, permanent. Do you SEE the problems with balancing the budget now?

Stop with that "balancing the budget" nonsense. That's not the issue. It's about reducing the deficit.

We don't have a deficit problem, we have a GOP problem. How do you propose to deal realistically with that?

How do we bell that cat?

By not raising the Debt Ceiling.

From there we'd have 2 choices: somehow raise the revenue to pay the bondholders, by Executive Order, which is a real possibility (like Nixon impounded funds which had been allocated). Nothing prevents it from happening again.

But if instead we then let the bondholders get shafted, there'd be no more deficits for many years, and we'd have to cut the spending by 30% or 40% --

massive meat-ax

in order to stay within the tax revenue raised. You can't pretend that we could pay all the budget spending demands even if there's no added debt. There would be FORCED spending cuts, by Executive Order, but also maybe the President can force some kind of revenue increase, even tax increase, without Congress. Even though it's illegal. He'd have to do it anyway.

It would be far preferable to have modest spending cuts or tax increases or both.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Agreeing on some facts/details
is a necessary starting point to the disagreeing.

Despite the disagreements, it's good to get a few objective facts correct. But at the same time to not bogged down in numbers which might be off by a small amount, or in a mistake in some detail.

Does everyone agree that:

⬤ There were increases in the deficits each year, from 2016-2019, twice under Obama, twice under Trump, and the Trump increases were greater, but all were debt increases percentagewise from the previous debt level (i.e., higher debt/GDP or higher deficit/GDP, not just higher raw number).

⬤ In 2020 there was a huge increase due to the Pandemic. In 2021 the deficit was still very high, but slightly lower than 2020. Those 2 years saw the highest and 2nd highest deficits ever (as a % of the economy, not just the raw number).

⬤ Then a significant decrease in 2022.

⬤ But in 2023 the deficit is slightly up from 2022. Maybe there's some confusion about this in the numbers. It might be a difference of only 1.38 trillion and 1.40 trillion, but the difference seems to be greater than this. It matters what the correct numbers are. The direction of the deficit should be down.

⬤ The deficits under Trump went up so much that the debt/GDP ratio reached 100% (or about 99%) in 2018 (BEFORE the Pandemic. It looks like this was a sudden sharp increase.) No one has said why the debt % of the economy should have to be this high. Traditionally the maximum % of debt/GDP was considered to be 80%. No one has ever disproved this 80% figure. Nothing has happened to show why the debt % should be 90% or 100% rather than 80% maximum. ("No one" is absolute, not referring just to those posting here. No economist has explained why 80% was the appropriate maximum for many decades but now the correct maximum is 90% or 100% or higher -- or has explained why the 80% figure was incorrect all that time.)

If any of the above is disputed, someone should give the alternative facts. And I don't claim the arithmetic is accurate in every case. It's fine if someone embarrasses me with corrections to my numbers above. It would be good for someone to review it. I'm using the "debt clock" site for some of it.



Maybe the following is disputed, but not actually contradicted by anyone using any facts:

The only logical explanation for the debt going higher is based solely on the theory that there should be NO LIMIT whatever on the level of public debt, but that any limit (like the debt ceiling) is bad. Other than this approval of ANY DEBT LEVEL NO MATTER HOW HIGH, there is no one giving any theory about what the debt limit should be. All expressed theories about debt limit are only that there should be no limit at all. No one is saying what the debt limit should be, but are giving tacit approval to others who say there should be none.

By contrast to this extremist dogmatism, the theory of Limit to Debt takes account of the exception during a period of unusual CRISIS or EMERGENCY. So limiting the debt by some mechanism (such as the Debt Ceiling) is a moderate theory which makes allowance for exceptions for a crisis, and room for debate on whether to prefer spending cuts or tax increases. In contrast to the Partisan fanatics of Left (spending increases no matter what) and Right (tax cuts no matter what). These Partisan Fanatics of both sides are the cause of whatever harm could result from the Debt Ceiling not being raised higher.

But if it's not raised higher, austerity will come in one form or another.



Fact, though disputed:

And this inevitable austerity is preferable to having no austerity at all but continued ever higher and higher debt (as a percent of the economy) such as we've had so far. It's important to remember that no one has ever proved, or given any evidence for, the theory that consistently higher and higher public debt is good for the economy (i.e., "higher debt" such as we've been having for nearly a century (other than following a major war when debt was partly paid down)). Traditionally most economists have said the maximum safe level was about 80% debt/GDP. This calculation assumes there is more harm than good resulting from having a higher debt level than this. And the harm is inevitable as a result of the repayment of debt (ANTI-stimulus) in the years following the initial new debt ("economic stimulus").

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The facts are, if Biden's budget is passed, that will slash future deficits to the ~$550 billion range. See the link I posted for info. Yes, that could be dealt with with more revenue raising efforts such as taxing high speed stock trading a minute amount per trade.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The facts are, if Biden's budget is passed, that will slash future deficits to the ~$550 billion range. See the link I posted for info.

But "future deficits" predictions are only promises -- no reason to trust rosy scenario predictions for 5 or 10 years later. And none of the future budgets years later can be voted on now. No vote now can really "slash" future budgets. Those future budgets will be decided by those future Congresses.

Yes, that could be dealt with with more revenue raising efforts such as taxing high speed stock trading a minute amount per trade.

The Wall Street tax is a good idea. Why aren't Dems doing that now? They at least could pass it in the Senate. Why isn't Biden saying anything about it? Many Repub voters would probably favor such a tax.

 

[Oleg]

Yes, that could be dealt with with more revenue raising efforts such as taxing high speed stock trading a minute amount per trade.

But never with fiscal restraint or efficient government. Never.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The four Trump budget years proposed massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, ACA and many other simikar programs. While simultaneously handing out massive tax cuts to the already rich and massive tax cuts for corporations. Sorry, that is not "efficient government". Again, the GOP had its chance. Efficient government? The GOP demanding Trump's foolish massive tax cuts be made permament? An efficient GOP way of increasing ever big deficits!

 

[Oleg]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is greed when a CEO's secretary pays more taxes than the CEO with his well paid accounts finding every loophole, and or very profitable company pays.

"Only little people pay taxes!"
- Leona Helmsley

 

[Oleg]

It is greed when a CEO's secretary pays more taxes than the CEO with his well paid accounts finding every loophole, and or very profitable company pays.

"Only little people pay taxes!"
- Leona Helmsley

Are you purposely ignoring the difference between wages and capital gains? Elon Musk paid the most taxes ever when he sold Tesla stock. Did MSNBC not inform you of that?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Are you ignoring all the massive tax cuts from Reagan on, and the loopholes for the rich that gave us massive deficits? Are you ignoring massive tax cuts and loopholes that mean a corporation with billions in profits pays little or no taxes? Are you ignoring conservatives' demands to slash social program spending to balance the buget, and the numbers that demonstrate we cannot reasonably hope to get a balanced budget by slashing spending? Are you ignoring the GOP's refusal to adequately fund the IRS to stop wealthy tax cheats? Are you ignoring that creating massive deficits has been a conscious GOP dirty trick to force slashing social program spending for years? Google "Starve The Beast" for that history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does everyone agree that:

⬤ There were increases in the deficits each year, from 2016-2019, twice under Obama, twice under Trump, and the Trump increases were greater, but all were debt increases percentagewise from the previous debt level (i.e., higher debt/GDP or higher deficit/GDP, not just higher raw number).

You get a better picture of the forces at work if you attribute the budget to the previous year--when the tax and spending measures that make it up are passed.

By contrast to this extremist dogmatism, the theory of Limit to Debt takes account of the exception during a period of unusual CRISIS or EMERGENCY. So limiting the debt by some mechanism (such as the Debt Ceiling) is a moderate theory which makes allowance for exceptions for a crisis, and room for debate on whether to prefer spending cuts or tax increases. In contrast to the Partisan fanatics of Left (spending increases no matter what) and Right (tax cuts no matter what). These Partisan Fanatics of both sides are the cause of whatever harm could result from the Debt Ceiling not being raised higher.

In practice the debt ceiling is always a political football, not an actual effort to control spending. If the votes exist for the spending or tax cutting the votes also exist for raising the ceiling. (And it gets even worse if you need different percentages--total deadlock when the majority votes for something that requires a supermajority to actually do.)

 

[Patooka]

Well this is curious. The supposed party of fiscal responsibility is not even remotely interested in reality;

Balancing federal budget in 10 years could require 41 percent cut to programs, when excluding Social Security: CBO

Hopes by lawmakers to balance the federal budget in a decade through reductions in spending could mean significant cuts to programs to achieve that goal, an analysis released by the Congressional B…

thehill.com

If Congress decides to keep the tax cuts, the CBO projected that, in order for the budget to be balanced in 2033, noninterest spending would have to be gradually reduced in the next 10 years until “it was 35 percent less than the amount in CBO’s baseline projections adjusted to incorporate the extension of the tax provisions.”

When not factoring in the extension of the tax cuts, the CBO projected that all noninterest outlays would have to be reduced by 41 percent to achieve a balanced budget in the same window. That’s if lawmakers also decided to factor out changes to Social Security, which comprises a chunk of federal spending.

The percentage rises to 57 percent when lawmakers take Medicare off the table as well, and then 86 percent when defense discretionary programs, and mandatory veterans’ programs are additionally factored out.

And yet it appears the GOP's solution to all this is more tax cuts and criminalising wokeness.

 

[Swammerdami]

Straight from www.whitehouse.gov. The Budget Of The United States - Fiscal Year 2023 - Summary Tables

Discretionary spending $1.639 trillion
Non-miiltary. Spending. $ .837 trillion
Mandatory Spending. $.5.625 trillion
Deficit $1.176 trillion

What ya gonna cut? How much?

They'll cut "discretionary non-military" spending of course! "Discretionary means "unnecessary."

But make sure your right-wing friends know that Veterans' Benefits, which costs about $0.3 trillion annually, is lumped into "discretionary non-military" spending. Our soldiers may be disappointed to know that deficit hawks find their healthcare "unnecessary."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In practice the debt ceiling is always a political football, not an actual effort to control spending.

Most major issues voted on are condemned as a political football by one or both sides. If there had never been any debt ceiling vote, the debt level would have grown faster and would be much higher by now. There's no evidence that this excess growth of debt has been beneficial to the economy. It's good to have the debt ceiling vote as a way to slow down the growth of debt.

If the votes exist for the spending or tax cutting the votes also exist for raising the ceiling.

If that were true the current debt ceiling would already have been raised, and there'd never have been a delay in raising it so many times previously. We need some mechanism like this to put pressure for spending cuts and tax increases.